....14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)

*Parphrased as*
Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that the
formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or false.
Which shows that X is undecidable in F.

Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.

A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the primary
bearer of truth or falsity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>
> *Parphrased as*
> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that the
> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or false.
> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.

Nope.

Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY.

>
> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.

But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just LYING.

Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven in F.

You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually is,
because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and don't even
understand that.

Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number that has
a specific property. Until you understand that, your continued talking
about this is just more LIES and DECIET, proving your absoulute STUPIDITY.

>
> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the primary
> bearer of truth or falsity.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>

Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are
arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar.

On 4/17/2024 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
"...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
undecidability proof..." (Gödel 1931:43-44)

is literally true whether or not Gödel meant it literally. Since it <is>
literally true I am sure that he did mean it literally.

> *Parphrased as*
> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that the
> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or false.
> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>

It is easy to understand that self-contradictory mean unprovable and
irrefutable, thus meeting the definition of Incomplete(F).

> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
>
> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the primary
> bearer of truth or falsity.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 4/18/24 1:57 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/17/2024 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> "...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof..." (Gödel 1931:43-44)
>
> is literally true whether or not Gödel meant it literally. Since it <is>
> literally true I am sure that he did mean it literally.
>
>> *Parphrased as*
>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that the
>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or false.
>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>>
>
> It is easy to understand that self-contradictory mean unprovable and
> irrefutable, thus meeting the definition of Incomplete(F).

Right, which is why Godel's G is NOT a "self-contradictory" statement.

You don't even understand the meaning of "Incomplete" here, as a
self-contradictory statement, and thus a statement which is neither true
or false, says nothing about incompleteness, since incompleteness is
only about the ability to prove or disprove truth bearers.

Note, since your "Parphrased" statement is an INCORRECT restatement of
the statement that Godel made (maybe the best you know, but you are
still incorrect) your whole logic falls down.

The fact that you REFUSE to look at the facts pointed out to you, just
prove why people believe things that are not true, it isn't a failing of
the logic system, but a refusal of some people (like you) to actually
look at the truth.

Of course, since "The Truth" is what run this universe, rejecting it
causes the person rejecting it to be in a very bad place, even if they
don't realize it yet.,

>
>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
>>
>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the primary
>> bearer of truth or falsity.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>
>

On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>
>> *Parphrased as*
>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that the
>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or false.
>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>
> Nope.
>
> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY.
>
>>
>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
>
> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just LYING.
>
> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven in F.
>
> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually is,
> because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and don't even
> understand that.
>
> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number that has
> a specific property. Until you understand that, your continued talking
> about this is just more LIES and DECIET, proving your absoulute STUPIDITY.
>
>>
>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the primary
>> bearer of truth or falsity.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>
>
> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are
> arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar.
>

If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop
talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names
if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing
out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you.

This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will
hear nothing form me.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 4/17/2024 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>
> *Parphrased as*
> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that the
> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or false.
> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>
> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
>
> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the primary
> bearer of truth or falsity.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>

I posted this here to establish priority date. I already have
another person on a different forum that fully understands what
I am saying and are publishing my ideas as their own.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>
>>> *Parphrased as*
>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that the
>>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or false.
>>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY.
>>
>>>
>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
>>
>> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just LYING.
>>
>> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven in F.
>>
>> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually is,
>> because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and don't even
>> understand that.
>>
>> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number that
>> has a specific property. Until you understand that, your continued
>> talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, proving your
>> absoulute STUPIDITY.
>>
>>>
>>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the primary
>>> bearer of truth or falsity.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>>
>>
>> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are
>> arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar.
>>
>
> If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop
> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names
> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing
> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you.
>
> This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will
> hear nothing form me.
>

I say you are WRONG, because you ARE.

You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable because it
is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't.

It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that satisfies a
particular property, which will be a truth bearing statement (The number
must either exist or it doesn't)

THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR.

That you repeat the error after being corrected, because apparently you
can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.

You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to refer to it
by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about its interpretation and
what can be proved from it in the meta-logic system derived from F.

The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE them, so it
seems worthless to repeat them every time.

On 4/18/24 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/17/2024 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>
>> *Parphrased as*
>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that the
>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or false.
>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>>
>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
>>
>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the primary
>> bearer of truth or falsity.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>
>
> I posted this here to establish priority date. I already have
> another person on a different forum that fully understands what
> I am saying and are publishing my ideas as their own.
>

Why do you need "priority" to a LIE?

On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>
>>>> *Parphrased as*
>>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that
>>>> the
>>>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or false.
>>>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
>>>
>>> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just LYING.
>>>
>>> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven in F.
>>>
>>> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually is,
>>> because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and don't
>>> even understand that.
>>>
>>> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number that
>>> has a specific property. Until you understand that, your continued
>>> talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, proving your
>>> absoulute STUPIDITY.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
>>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the
>>>> primary
>>>> bearer of truth or falsity.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are
>>> arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar.
>>>
>>
>> If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop
>> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names
>> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing
>> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you.
>>
>> This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will
>> hear nothing form me.
>>
>
> I say you are WRONG, because you ARE.
>
> You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable because it
> is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't.
>
> It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that satisfies a
> particular property, which will be a truth bearing statement (The number
> must either exist or it doesn't)
>
> THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR.
>

*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
*That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*

> That you repeat the error after being corrected, because apparently you
> can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
>
> You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to refer to it
> by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about its interpretation and
> what can be proved from it in the meta-logic system derived from F.
>
> The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE them, so it
> seems worthless to repeat them every time.

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>> similar
>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>
>>>>> *Parphrased as*
>>>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves
>>>>> that the
>>>>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or false.
>>>>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
>>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
>>>>
>>>> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just LYING.
>>>>
>>>> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven in F.
>>>>
>>>> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually is,
>>>> because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and don't
>>>> even understand that.
>>>>
>>>> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number that
>>>> has a specific property. Until you understand that, your continued
>>>> talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, proving your
>>>> absoulute STUPIDITY.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
>>>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the
>>>>> primary
>>>>> bearer of truth or falsity.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are
>>>> arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop
>>> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names
>>> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing
>>> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you.
>>>
>>> This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will
>>> hear nothing form me.
>>>
>>
>> I say you are WRONG, because you ARE.
>>
>> You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable because it
>> is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't.
>>
>> It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that satisfies a
>> particular property, which will be a truth bearing statement (The
>> number must either exist or it doesn't)
>>
>> THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR.
>>
>
> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*

Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but incompletenwss,
which is what the WORDS you used talked about. (Read what you said above).

INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements that
are true.

Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with
undecidability, in fact, the "computation" he described in the Primative
Recursive Relationship built is specifically one that is most assuredly
computable (for ANY number give to it, it WILL answer yes or no in
finite number of operations).

So, who has been lying about what they are talkinga about? (or doesn't
know the difference in the topics).

I answereed what you were talking about, even though it didn't match
your subject, because I understand your general confusion on the topics.

So, you are just needing to yell at YOUSELF for using the wrong word,
which just shows your total ignorance about what you are talking about.

Do you REALLY wonder why I point out your inability to put together a
coherent argument?

You just showed yourself guilty of trying to use a Red Herring to
deflect the arguement about how you are totally ignorant about Godel's
argement, and that you LIE about what he said, because you have no idea
what he said, but try to put your own false words into his mouth,

>
>> That you repeat the error after being corrected, because apparently
>> you can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
>>
>> You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to refer to
>> it by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about its
>> interpretation and what can be proved from it in the meta-logic system
>> derived from F.
>>
>> The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE them, so
>> it seems worthless to repeat them every time.
>

On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>> similar
>>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Parphrased as*
>>>>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves
>>>>>> that the
>>>>>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or
>>>>>> false.
>>>>>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
>>>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just LYING.
>>>>>
>>>>> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven in F.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually is,
>>>>> because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and don't
>>>>> even understand that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number that
>>>>> has a specific property. Until you understand that, your continued
>>>>> talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, proving your
>>>>> absoulute STUPIDITY.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
>>>>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the
>>>>>> primary
>>>>>> bearer of truth or falsity.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are
>>>>> arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop
>>>> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names
>>>> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing
>>>> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you.
>>>>
>>>> This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will
>>>> hear nothing form me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I say you are WRONG, because you ARE.
>>>
>>> You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable because
>>> it is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't.
>>>
>>> It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that satisfies
>>> a particular property, which will be a truth bearing statement (The
>>> number must either exist or it doesn't)
>>>
>>> THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR.
>>>
>>
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>
> Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but incompletenwss,
> which is what the WORDS you used talked about. (Read what you said above).
>
> INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements that
> are true.
>
> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with
> undecidability,

*Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
*Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
*Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
*Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*

https://sistemas.fciencias.unam.mx/~lokylog/images/Notas/la_aldea_de_la_logica/Libros_notas_varios/L_02_MENDELSON,%20E%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Mathematical%20Logic,%206th%20Ed%20-%20CRC%20Press%20(2015).pdf

> in fact, the "computation" he described in the Primative
> Recursive Relationship built is specifically one that is most assuredly
> computable (for ANY number give to it, it WILL answer yes or no in
> finite number of operations).
>
> So, who has been lying about what they are talkinga about? (or doesn't
> know the difference in the topics).
>
> I answereed what you were talking about, even though it didn't match
> your subject, because I understand your general confusion on the topics.
>
> So, you are just needing to yell at YOUSELF for using the wrong word,
> which just shows your total ignorance about what you are talking about.
>
> Do you REALLY wonder why I point out your inability to put together a
> coherent argument?
>
> You just showed yourself guilty of trying to use a Red Herring to
> deflect the arguement about how you are totally ignorant about Godel's
> argement, and that you LIE about what he said, because you have no idea
> what he said, but try to put your own false words into his mouth,
>
>
>>
>>> That you repeat the error after being corrected, because apparently
>>> you can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
>>>
>>> You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to refer to
>>> it by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about its
>>> interpretation and what can be proved from it in the meta-logic
>>> system derived from F.
>>>
>>> The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE them, so
>>> it seems worthless to repeat them every time.
>>
>

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 4/18/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Parphrased as*
>>>>>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves
>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or
>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
>>>>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just LYING.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven in F.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually
>>>>>> is, because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and
>>>>>> don't even understand that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number
>>>>>> that has a specific property. Until you understand that, your
>>>>>> continued talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, proving
>>>>>> your absoulute STUPIDITY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
>>>>>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the
>>>>>>> primary
>>>>>>> bearer of truth or falsity.
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are
>>>>>> arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop
>>>>> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names
>>>>> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing
>>>>> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will
>>>>> hear nothing form me.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I say you are WRONG, because you ARE.
>>>>
>>>> You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable because
>>>> it is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't.
>>>>
>>>> It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that satisfies
>>>> a particular property, which will be a truth bearing statement (The
>>>> number must either exist or it doesn't)
>>>>
>>>> THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>
>> Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but incompletenwss,
>> which is what the WORDS you used talked about. (Read what you said
>> above).
>>
>> INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements that
>> are true.
>>
>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with undecidability,
>
> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
>
> https://sistemas.fciencias.unam.mx/~lokylog/images/Notas/la_aldea_de_la_logica/Libros_notas_varios/L_02_MENDELSON,%20E%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Mathematical%20Logic,%206th%20Ed%20-%20CRC%20Press%20(2015).pdf

WHERE does he say that GODEL INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM directly says
anything about DECIDABILITY?

Yes, there is a link between completeness and decidability, as an
incomplete system has an undecidable problem, that of the proof
generator for that statement, and a system with an undeciable problem is
incomplete, as if we could prove the correct answer, then a theorem
prover could compute the answer, but they are different things.

And your complaint just shows you don't understand that.

>
>> in fact, the "computation" he described in the Primative Recursive
>> Relationship built is specifically one that is most assuredly
>> computable (for ANY number give to it, it WILL answer yes or no in
>> finite number of operations).
>>
>> So, who has been lying about what they are talkinga about? (or doesn't
>> know the difference in the topics).
>>
>> I answereed what you were talking about, even though it didn't match
>> your subject, because I understand your general confusion on the topics.
>>
>> So, you are just needing to yell at YOUSELF for using the wrong word,
>> which just shows your total ignorance about what you are talking about.
>>
>> Do you REALLY wonder why I point out your inability to put together a
>> coherent argument?
>>
>> You just showed yourself guilty of trying to use a Red Herring to
>> deflect the arguement about how you are totally ignorant about Godel's
>> argement, and that you LIE about what he said, because you have no
>> idea what he said, but try to put your own false words into his mouth,
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> That you repeat the error after being corrected, because apparently
>>>> you can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
>>>>
>>>> You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to refer
>>>> to it by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about its
>>>> interpretation and what can be proved from it in the meta-logic
>>>> system derived from F.
>>>>
>>>> The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE them, so
>>>> it seems worthless to repeat them every time.
>>>
>>
>

On 4/18/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/18/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Parphrased as*
>>>>>>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves
>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or
>>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly
>>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just
>>>>>>> LYING.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven
>>>>>>> in F.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually
>>>>>>> is, because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and
>>>>>>> don't even understand that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number
>>>>>>> that has a specific property. Until you understand that, your
>>>>>>> continued talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET,
>>>>>>> proving your absoulute STUPIDITY.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
>>>>>>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the
>>>>>>>> primary
>>>>>>>> bearer of truth or falsity.
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are
>>>>>>> arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop
>>>>>> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names
>>>>>> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing
>>>>>> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will
>>>>>> hear nothing form me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I say you are WRONG, because you ARE.
>>>>>
>>>>> You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable because
>>>>> it is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that
>>>>> satisfies a particular property, which will be a truth bearing
>>>>> statement (The number must either exist or it doesn't)
>>>>>
>>>>> THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>
>>> Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but
>>> incompletenwss, which is what the WORDS you used talked about. (Read
>>> what you said above).
>>>
>>> INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements
>>> that are true.
>>>
>>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with
>>> undecidability,
>>
>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
>>
>> https://sistemas.fciencias.unam.mx/~lokylog/images/Notas/la_aldea_de_la_logica/Libros_notas_varios/L_02_MENDELSON,%20E%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Mathematical%20Logic,%206th%20Ed%20-%20CRC%20Press%20(2015).pdf
>
> WHERE does he say that GODEL INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM directly says
> anything about DECIDABILITY?
>
> Yes, there is a link between completeness and decidability, as an
> incomplete system has an undecidable problem, that of the proof

*In other words you are totally retracting the line that I replied to*
>>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with
>>> undecidability,

That is good because I totally agree with the preceding line that you said.

> generator for that statement, and a system with an undeciable problem is
> incomplete, as if we could prove the correct answer, then a theorem
> prover could compute the answer, but they are different things.
>
> And your complaint just shows you don't understand that.
>
>>
>>> in fact, the "computation" he described in the Primative Recursive
>>> Relationship built is specifically one that is most assuredly
>>> computable (for ANY number give to it, it WILL answer yes or no in
>>> finite number of operations).
>>>
>>> So, who has been lying about what they are talkinga about? (or
>>> doesn't know the difference in the topics).
>>>
>>> I answereed what you were talking about, even though it didn't match
>>> your subject, because I understand your general confusion on the topics.
>>>
>>> So, you are just needing to yell at YOUSELF for using the wrong word,
>>> which just shows your total ignorance about what you are talking about.
>>>
>>> Do you REALLY wonder why I point out your inability to put together a
>>> coherent argument?
>>>
>>> You just showed yourself guilty of trying to use a Red Herring to
>>> deflect the arguement about how you are totally ignorant about
>>> Godel's argement, and that you LIE about what he said, because you
>>> have no idea what he said, but try to put your own false words into
>>> his mouth,
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That you repeat the error after being corrected, because apparently
>>>>> you can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to refer
>>>>> to it by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about its
>>>>> interpretation and what can be proved from it in the meta-logic
>>>>> system derived from F.
>>>>>
>>>>> The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE them,
>>>>> so it seems worthless to repeat them every time.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

On 4/18/24 11:28 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/18/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/18/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Parphrased as*
>>>>>>>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves
>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or
>>>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>>>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just
>>>>>>>> LYING.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven
>>>>>>>> in F.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually
>>>>>>>> is, because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and
>>>>>>>> don't even understand that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number
>>>>>>>> that has a specific property. Until you understand that, your
>>>>>>>> continued talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET,
>>>>>>>> proving your absoulute STUPIDITY.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
>>>>>>>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as
>>>>>>>>> the primary
>>>>>>>>> bearer of truth or falsity.
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you
>>>>>>>> are arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will
>>>>>>> stop
>>>>>>> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me
>>>>>>> names
>>>>>>> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing
>>>>>>> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will
>>>>>>> hear nothing form me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I say you are WRONG, because you ARE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable
>>>>>> because it is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that
>>>>>> satisfies a particular property, which will be a truth bearing
>>>>>> statement (The number must either exist or it doesn't)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>
>>>> Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but
>>>> incompletenwss, which is what the WORDS you used talked about. (Read
>>>> what you said above).
>>>>
>>>> INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements
>>>> that are true.
>>>>
>>>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with
>>>> undecidability,
>>>
>>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
>>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
>>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
>>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
>>>
>>> https://sistemas.fciencias.unam.mx/~lokylog/images/Notas/la_aldea_de_la_logica/Libros_notas_varios/L_02_MENDELSON,%20E%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Mathematical%20Logic,%206th%20Ed%20-%20CRC%20Press%20(2015).pdf
>>
>> WHERE does he say that GODEL INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM directly says
>> anything about DECIDABILITY?
>>
>> Yes, there is a link between completeness and decidability, as an
>> incomplete system has an undecidable problem, that of the proof
>
> *In other words you are totally retracting the line that I replied to*
> >>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with
> >>> undecidability,
>
> That is good because I totally agree with the preceding line that you said.

No, because Godel was NOT talking about "undecidability" but
"Incompleteness".

Even though there is a tie between the two topics, they are separate topics.

This just shows that your native lanuguage is just LIES, as that is all
you can focus on.

Note, you have done NOTHING to refute all the errors I pointed out about
your statements of Godel's proof, so you initial statement in the
paraphrase is still shown to be a LIE, and your whole proof just
incorrect and unsound, as you are by your basic nature.

Your concept of "Correct Reasoning" is NOT "Correct", or even really
based on "Reasoning", because you just don't understand either concept.

>
>> generator for that statement, and a system with an undeciable problem
>> is incomplete, as if we could prove the correct answer, then a theorem
>> prover could compute the answer, but they are different things.
>>
>> And your complaint just shows you don't understand that.
>>
>>>
>>>> in fact, the "computation" he described in the Primative Recursive
>>>> Relationship built is specifically one that is most assuredly
>>>> computable (for ANY number give to it, it WILL answer yes or no in
>>>> finite number of operations).
>>>>
>>>> So, who has been lying about what they are talkinga about? (or
>>>> doesn't know the difference in the topics).
>>>>
>>>> I answereed what you were talking about, even though it didn't match
>>>> your subject, because I understand your general confusion on the
>>>> topics.
>>>>
>>>> So, you are just needing to yell at YOUSELF for using the wrong
>>>> word, which just shows your total ignorance about what you are
>>>> talking about.
>>>>
>>>> Do you REALLY wonder why I point out your inability to put together
>>>> a coherent argument?
>>>>
>>>> You just showed yourself guilty of trying to use a Red Herring to
>>>> deflect the arguement about how you are totally ignorant about
>>>> Godel's argement, and that you LIE about what he said, because you
>>>> have no idea what he said, but try to put your own false words into
>>>> his mouth,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> That you repeat the error after being corrected, because
>>>>>> apparently you can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a
>>>>>> PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to refer
>>>>>> to it by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about its
>>>>>> interpretation and what can be proved from it in the meta-logic
>>>>>> system derived from F.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE them,
>>>>>> so it seems worthless to repeat them every time.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

On 4/19/2024 6:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/18/24 11:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/18/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/18/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>>>>>>>> a similar
>>>>>>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Parphrased as*
>>>>>>>>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false
>>>>>>>>>> proves that the
>>>>>>>>>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true
>>>>>>>>>> or false.
>>>>>>>>>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot
>>>>>>>>>> possibly be a
>>>>>>>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just
>>>>>>>>> LYING.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven
>>>>>>>>> in F.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually
>>>>>>>>> is, because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and
>>>>>>>>> don't even understand that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number
>>>>>>>>> that has a specific property. Until you understand that, your
>>>>>>>>> continued talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET,
>>>>>>>>> proving your absoulute STUPIDITY.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
>>>>>>>>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as
>>>>>>>>>> the primary
>>>>>>>>>> bearer of truth or falsity.
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you
>>>>>>>>> are arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will
>>>>>>>> stop
>>>>>>>> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me
>>>>>>>> names
>>>>>>>> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without
>>>>>>>> pointing
>>>>>>>> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will
>>>>>>>> hear nothing form me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I say you are WRONG, because you ARE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable
>>>>>>> because it is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that
>>>>>>> satisfies a particular property, which will be a truth bearing
>>>>>>> statement (The number must either exist or it doesn't)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but
>>>>> incompletenwss, which is what the WORDS you used talked about.
>>>>> (Read what you said above).
>>>>>
>>>>> INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements
>>>>> that are true.
>>>>>
>>>>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with
>>>>> undecidability,
>>>>
>>>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
>>>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
>>>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
>>>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
>>>>
>>>> https://sistemas.fciencias.unam.mx/~lokylog/images/Notas/la_aldea_de_la_logica/Libros_notas_varios/L_02_MENDELSON,%20E%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Mathematical%20Logic,%206th%20Ed%20-%20CRC%20Press%20(2015).pdf
>>>
>>> WHERE does he say that GODEL INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM directly says
>>> anything about DECIDABILITY?
>>>
>>> Yes, there is a link between completeness and decidability, as an
>>> incomplete system has an undecidable problem, that of the proof
>>
>> *In other words you are totally retracting the line that I replied to*
>>  >>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with
>>  >>> undecidability,
>>
>> That is good because I totally agree with the preceding line that you
>> said.
>
> No, because Godel was NOT talking about "undecidability" but
> "Incompleteness".
>
> Even though there is a tie between the two topics, they are separate
> topics.
>

Not according to this source

Undecidability
The non-existence of an algorithm or the impossibility of proving or
disproving a statement within a formal system.

https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Undecidability#:~:text=The%20non%2Dexistence%20of%20an,statement%20within%20a%20formal%20system.

> This just shows that your native lanuguage is just LIES, as that is all
> you can focus on.
>
> Note, you have done NOTHING to refute all the errors I pointed out about
> your statements of Godel's proof, so you initial statement in the
> paraphrase is still shown to be a LIE, and your whole proof just
> incorrect and unsound, as you are by your basic nature.
>
> Your concept of "Correct Reasoning" is NOT "Correct", or even really
> based on "Reasoning", because you just don't understand either concept.
>
>>
>>> generator for that statement, and a system with an undeciable problem
>>> is incomplete, as if we could prove the correct answer, then a
>>> theorem prover could compute the answer, but they are different things.
>>>
>>> And your complaint just shows you don't understand that.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> in fact, the "computation" he described in the Primative Recursive
>>>>> Relationship built is specifically one that is most assuredly
>>>>> computable (for ANY number give to it, it WILL answer yes or no in
>>>>> finite number of operations).
>>>>>
>>>>> So, who has been lying about what they are talkinga about? (or
>>>>> doesn't know the difference in the topics).
>>>>>
>>>>> I answereed what you were talking about, even though it didn't
>>>>> match your subject, because I understand your general confusion on
>>>>> the topics.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you are just needing to yell at YOUSELF for using the wrong
>>>>> word, which just shows your total ignorance about what you are
>>>>> talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you REALLY wonder why I point out your inability to put together
>>>>> a coherent argument?
>>>>>
>>>>> You just showed yourself guilty of trying to use a Red Herring to
>>>>> deflect the arguement about how you are totally ignorant about
>>>>> Godel's argement, and that you LIE about what he said, because you
>>>>> have no idea what he said, but try to put your own false words into
>>>>> his mouth,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That you repeat the error after being corrected, because
>>>>>>> apparently you can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a
>>>>>>> PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to
>>>>>>> refer to it by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about its
>>>>>>> interpretation and what can be proved from it in the meta-logic
>>>>>>> system derived from F.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE them,
>>>>>>> so it seems worthless to repeat them every time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>> similar
>>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Parphrased as*
>>>>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves
>>>>>> that the
>>>>>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or
>>>>>> false.
>>>>>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
>>>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just LYING.
>>>>>
>>>>> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven in F.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually is,
>>>>> because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and don't
>>>>> even understand that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number that
>>>>> has a specific property. Until you understand that, your continued
>>>>> talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, proving your
>>>>> absoulute STUPIDITY.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
>>>>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the
>>>>>> primary
>>>>>> bearer of truth or falsity.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are
>>>>> arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop
>>>> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names
>>>> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing
>>>> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you.
>>>>
>>>> This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will
>>>> hear nothing form me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I say you are WRONG, because you ARE.
>>>
>>> You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable because
>>> it is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't.
>>>
>>> It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that satisfies
>>> a particular property, which will be a truth bearing statement (The
>>> number must either exist or it doesn't)
>>>
>>> THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR.
>>>
>>
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>
> Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but incompletenwss,
> which is what the WORDS you used talked about. (Read what you said above).
>
> INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements that
> are true.
>

I agree with this, and some other sources agree with this.

> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with
> undecidability,

*Other sources disagree*

*These two sources define Undecidability as Incompleteness*
Incomplete(F) ≡ ∃x ∈ L ((L ⊬ x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x))

Undecidable
Not decidable as a result of being
*neither formally provable nor unprovable*
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Undecidable.html

Undecidability
The non-existence of an algorithm or the
*impossibility of proving or disproving a*
*statement within a formal system*
https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Undecidability#:~:text=The%20non%2Dexistence%20of%20an,statement%20within%20a%20formal%20system.

> in fact, the "computation" he described in the Primative
> Recursive Relationship built is specifically one that is most assuredly
> computable (for ANY number give to it, it WILL answer yes or no in
> finite number of operations).
>
> So, who has been lying about what they are talkinga about? (or doesn't
> know the difference in the topics).
>
> I answereed what you were talking about, even though it didn't match
> your subject, because I understand your general confusion on the topics.
>
> So, you are just needing to yell at YOUSELF for using the wrong word,
> which just shows your total ignorance about what you are talking about.
>
> Do you REALLY wonder why I point out your inability to put together a
> coherent argument?
>
> You just showed yourself guilty of trying to use a Red Herring to
> deflect the arguement about how you are totally ignorant about Godel's
> argement, and that you LIE about what he said, because you have no idea
> what he said, but try to put your own false words into his mouth,
>
>
>>
>>> That you repeat the error after being corrected, because apparently
>>> you can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
>>>
>>> You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to refer to
>>> it by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about its
>>> interpretation and what can be proved from it in the meta-logic
>>> system derived from F.
>>>
>>> The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE them, so
>>> it seems worthless to repeat them every time.
>>
>

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 04/17/2024 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/17/2024 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> "...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
> undecidability proof..." (Gödel 1931:43-44)
>
> is literally true whether or not Gödel meant it literally. Since it <is>
> literally true I am sure that he did mean it literally.
>
>> *Parphrased as*
>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that the
>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or false.
>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>>
>
> It is easy to understand that self-contradictory mean unprovable and
> irrefutable, thus meeting the definition of Incomplete(F).
>
>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
>>
>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the primary
>> bearer of truth or falsity.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>
>

Most common-sense types have "the truth is the truth is the truth" then
as with regards to logical positivism and a sensitive, thorough,
comprehensive, reasoned account of rationality and the fundamental
objects of the logical theory, makes for again a stonger logical
positivism, reinvigorated with a minimal "silver thread" to a
metaphysics, all quite logicist and all quite positivist, while
again structuralist and formalist, "the truth is the truth is the truth".

Plainly, modeling bodies of knowledge is at least two things,
one is a formal logical model, and another is a scientific model,
as with regards to expectations, a statistical model.

For all the things to be in one modality, is that, as a model of
belief, is that belief is formally unreliable, while at the same
time, reasoned and rational as for its own inner consistency and
inter-consistency, all the other models in the entire modal universe,
temporal.

Axioms are stipulations, they're assumptions, and there are some
very well-reasoned ones, and those what follow the reflections on
relation, in matters of definition of structural relation, and
the first-class typing, of these things.

The axiomless, really does make for a richer accoutrement,
after metaphysics and the canon, why the objects of reason
and rationality, "arise" from axiomless deduction, naturally.

Then, our axiomatics and theory "attain" to this, the truth,
of what is, "A Theory", at all.

One good theory. (Modeling all individuals and contingencies
and their models of belief as part of the world of theory.)

One good theory, "A Theory: at all", we are in it.

A catalog and schema and dictionary and the finite is only that, though.

"Bigger: not always worse."

On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>> similar
>>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Parphrased as*
>>>>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves
>>>>>> that the
>>>>>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or
>>>>>> false.
>>>>>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
>>>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just LYING.
>>>>>
>>>>> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven in F.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually is,
>>>>> because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and don't
>>>>> even understand that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number that
>>>>> has a specific property. Until you understand that, your continued
>>>>> talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, proving your
>>>>> absoulute STUPIDITY.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
>>>>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the
>>>>>> primary
>>>>>> bearer of truth or falsity.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are
>>>>> arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop
>>>> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names
>>>> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing
>>>> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you.
>>>>
>>>> This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will
>>>> hear nothing form me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I say you are WRONG, because you ARE.
>>>
>>> You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable because
>>> it is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't.
>>>
>>> It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that satisfies
>>> a particular property, which will be a truth bearing statement (The
>>> number must either exist or it doesn't)
>>>
>>> THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR.
>>>
>>
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>
> Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but incompletenwss,
> which is what the WORDS you used talked about. (Read what you said above).
>
> INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements that
> are true.

*That is an excellent and correct foundation for what I am saying*

When we create a three-valued logic system that has these
three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic

Then "This sentence is not true" has the semantic value of {Nonsense}
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" has the semantic
value of {True}.

Although it may be difficult to understand that is exactly the
difference between Tarski's "theory" and "metatheory" simplified
as much as possible.

This is Tarski's Liar Paradox basis
https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf

That he refers to in this paragraph of his actual proof
"In accordance with the first part of Th. I we can obtain
the negation of one of the sentences in condition (α) of
convention T of § 3 as a consequence of the definition of
the symbol 'Pr' (provided we replace 'Tr' in this convention
by 'Pr')." https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf

Allows his original formalized Liar Paradox:

x ∉ True if and only if p
where the symbol 'p' represents the whole sentence x

to be reverse-engineered from Line(1) of his actual proof:
(I changed his abbreviations of "Pr" and "Tr" into words)

Here is the Tarski Undefinability Theorem proof
(1) x ∉ Provable if and only if p // assumption
(2) x ∈ True if and only if p // assumption
(3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True. // derived from (1) and (2)
(4) either x ∉ True or x̄ ∉ True; // axiom: True(x) ∨ ~True(~x)
(5) if x ∈ Provable, then x ∈ True; // axiom: Provable(x) → True(x)
(6) if x̄ ∈ Provable, then x̄ ∈ True; // axiom: Provable(~x) → True(~x)
(7) x ∈ True
(8) x ∉ Provable
(9) x̄ ∉ Provable

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 4/19/2024 11:51 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/17/2024 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/17/2024 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> "...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>> undecidability proof..." (Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>
>> is literally true whether or not Gödel meant it literally. Since it <is>
>> literally true I am sure that he did mean it literally.
>>
>>> *Parphrased as*
>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that the
>>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or false.
>>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>>>
>>
>> It is easy to understand that self-contradictory mean unprovable and
>> irrefutable, thus meeting the definition of Incomplete(F).
>>
>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
>>>
>>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the primary
>>> bearer of truth or falsity.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>>
>>
>
> Most common-sense types have "the truth is the truth is the truth" then
> as with regards to logical positivism and a sensitive, thorough,
> comprehensive, reasoned account of rationality and the fundamental
> objects of the logical theory, makes for again a stonger logical
> positivism, reinvigorated with a minimal "silver thread" to a
> metaphysics, all quite logicist and all quite positivist, while
> again structuralist and formalist, "the truth is the truth is the truth".
>
> Plainly, modeling bodies of knowledge is at least two things,
> one is a formal logical model, and another is a scientific model,
> as with regards to expectations, a statistical model.
>
> For all the things to be in one modality, is that, as a model of
> belief, is that belief is formally unreliable, while at the same
> time, reasoned and rational as for its own inner consistency and
> inter-consistency, all the other models in the entire modal universe,
> temporal.
>
>
> Axioms are stipulations, they're assumptions, and there are some
> very well-reasoned ones, and those what follow the reflections on
> relation, in matters of definition of structural relation, and
> the first-class typing, of these things.
>

In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is
a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence

In the case of the correct model of the actual world stipulations
are not assumptions. In this case stipulations are the assignment of
semantic meaning to otherwise totally meaningless finite strings.

We do not merely assume that a "dead rat" is not any type of
"fifteen story office building" we know that it is a self-evident
truth.

Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true for the
sole purpose of providing semantic meaning to otherwise totally
meaningless finite strings provide the ultimate foundation of every
expression that are true on the basis of its meaning.

The only other element required to define the entire body of
{expressions of language that are true on the basis of their meaning}
is applying truth preserving operations to stipulated truths.

> The axiomless, really does make for a richer accoutrement,
> after metaphysics and the canon, why the objects of reason
> and rationality, "arise" from axiomless deduction, naturally.
>
> Then, our axiomatics and theory "attain" to this, the truth,
> of what is, "A Theory", at all.
>
> One good theory.  (Modeling all individuals and contingencies
> and their models of belief as part of the world of theory.)
>
> One good theory, "A Theory: at all", we are in it.
>
>
> A catalog and schema and dictionary and the finite is only that, though.
>
> "Bigger:  not always worse."
>
>
>

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 04/19/2024 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/19/2024 11:51 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 04/17/2024 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/17/2024 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> "...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar
>>> undecidability proof..." (Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>
>>> is literally true whether or not Gödel meant it literally. Since it <is>
>>> literally true I am sure that he did mean it literally.
>>>
>>>> *Parphrased as*
>>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that
>>>> the
>>>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or false.
>>>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is easy to understand that self-contradictory mean unprovable and
>>> irrefutable, thus meeting the definition of Incomplete(F).
>>>
>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
>>>>
>>>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
>>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the
>>>> primary
>>>> bearer of truth or falsity.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Most common-sense types have "the truth is the truth is the truth" then
>> as with regards to logical positivism and a sensitive, thorough,
>> comprehensive, reasoned account of rationality and the fundamental
>> objects of the logical theory, makes for again a stonger logical
>> positivism, reinvigorated with a minimal "silver thread" to a
>> metaphysics, all quite logicist and all quite positivist, while
>> again structuralist and formalist, "the truth is the truth is the truth".
>>
>> Plainly, modeling bodies of knowledge is at least two things,
>> one is a formal logical model, and another is a scientific model,
>> as with regards to expectations, a statistical model.
>>
>> For all the things to be in one modality, is that, as a model of
>> belief, is that belief is formally unreliable, while at the same
>> time, reasoned and rational as for its own inner consistency and
>> inter-consistency, all the other models in the entire modal universe,
>> temporal.
>>
>>
>> Axioms are stipulations, they're assumptions, and there are some
>> very well-reasoned ones, and those what follow the reflections on
>> relation, in matters of definition of structural relation, and
>> the first-class typing, of these things.
>>
>
> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is
> a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
> without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>
> In the case of the correct model of the actual world stipulations
> are not assumptions. In this case stipulations are the assignment of
> semantic meaning to otherwise totally meaningless finite strings.
>
> We do not merely assume that a "dead rat" is not any type of
> "fifteen story office building" we know that it is a self-evident
> truth.
>
> Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true for the
> sole purpose of providing semantic meaning to otherwise totally
> meaningless finite strings provide the ultimate foundation of every
> expression that are true on the basis of its meaning.
>
> The only other element required to define the entire body of
> {expressions of language that are true on the basis of their meaning}
> is applying truth preserving operations to stipulated truths.
>
>> The axiomless, really does make for a richer accoutrement,
>> after metaphysics and the canon, why the objects of reason
>> and rationality, "arise" from axiomless deduction, naturally.
>>
>> Then, our axiomatics and theory "attain" to this, the truth,
>> of what is, "A Theory", at all.
>>
>> One good theory. (Modeling all individuals and contingencies
>> and their models of belief as part of the world of theory.)
>>
>> One good theory, "A Theory: at all", we are in it.
>>
>>
>> A catalog and schema and dictionary and the finite is only that, though.
>>
>> "Bigger: not always worse."
>>
>>
>>
>

"Understanding" doesn't mean much here
except lack thereof, and hypocrisy.

We only have "true axioms" because in
all their applications they've held up.
They "withstand", and, "overstand".

There's nothing wrong with Tertium Not Datur,
for the class of predicates where it applies.

Which is not all of them.

On 4/19/2024 4:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/19/2024 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/19/2024 11:51 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 04/17/2024 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/17/2024 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> "...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>> similar
>>>> undecidability proof..." (Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>
>>>> is literally true whether or not Gödel meant it literally. Since it
>>>> <is>
>>>> literally true I am sure that he did mean it literally.
>>>>
>>>>> *Parphrased as*
>>>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves that
>>>>> the
>>>>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or false.
>>>>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is easy to understand that self-contradictory mean unprovable and
>>>> irrefutable, thus meeting the definition of Incomplete(F).
>>>>
>>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
>>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
>>>>>
>>>>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
>>>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the
>>>>> primary
>>>>> bearer of truth or falsity.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Most common-sense types have "the truth is the truth is the truth" then
>>> as with regards to logical positivism and a sensitive, thorough,
>>> comprehensive, reasoned account of rationality and the fundamental
>>> objects of the logical theory, makes for again a stonger logical
>>> positivism, reinvigorated with a minimal "silver thread" to a
>>> metaphysics, all quite logicist and all quite positivist, while
>>> again structuralist and formalist, "the truth is the truth is the
>>> truth".
>>>
>>> Plainly, modeling bodies of knowledge is at least two things,
>>> one is a formal logical model, and another is a scientific model,
>>> as with regards to expectations, a statistical model.
>>>
>>> For all the things to be in one modality, is that, as a model of
>>> belief, is that belief is formally unreliable, while at the same
>>> time, reasoned and rational as for its own inner consistency and
>>> inter-consistency, all the other models in the entire modal universe,
>>> temporal.
>>>
>>>
>>> Axioms are stipulations, they're assumptions, and there are some
>>> very well-reasoned ones, and those what follow the reflections on
>>> relation, in matters of definition of structural relation, and
>>> the first-class typing, of these things.
>>>
>>
>> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is
>> a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
>> without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>>
>> In the case of the correct model of the actual world stipulations
>> are not assumptions. In this case stipulations are the assignment of
>> semantic meaning to otherwise totally meaningless finite strings.
>>
>> We do not merely assume that a "dead rat" is not any type of
>> "fifteen story office building" we know that it is a self-evident
>> truth.
>>
>> Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true for the
>> sole purpose of providing semantic meaning to otherwise totally
>> meaningless finite strings provide the ultimate foundation of every
>> expression that are true on the basis of its meaning.
>>
>> The only other element required to define the entire body of
>> {expressions of language that are true on the basis of their meaning}
>> is applying truth preserving operations to stipulated truths.
>>
>>> The axiomless, really does make for a richer accoutrement,
>>> after metaphysics and the canon, why the objects of reason
>>> and rationality, "arise" from axiomless deduction, naturally.
>>>
>>> Then, our axiomatics and theory "attain" to this, the truth,
>>> of what is, "A Theory", at all.
>>>
>>> One good theory.  (Modeling all individuals and contingencies
>>> and their models of belief as part of the world of theory.)
>>>
>>> One good theory, "A Theory: at all", we are in it.
>>>
>>>
>>> A catalog and schema and dictionary and the finite is only that, though.
>>>
>>> "Bigger:  not always worse."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> "Understanding" doesn't mean much here
> except lack thereof, and hypocrisy.
>
> We only have "true axioms" because in
> all their applications they've held up.
> They "withstand", and, "overstand".
>
>

We cannot really understand the notion of true on the basis of meaning
by only examining how this applies to real numbers. We must broaden
the scope to every natural language expression.

When we do this then we understand that a "dead rat" is not any type
of "fifteen story office building" is a semantic tautology that cannot
possibly be false.

When we understand this then we have much deeper insight into the nature
of mathematical axioms, they too must be semantic tautologies.

> There's nothing wrong with Tertium Not Datur,
> for the class of predicates where it applies.
>
> Which is not all of them.
>
>

--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 4/19/24 10:18 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/19/2024 6:09 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/18/24 11:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/18/2024 9:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/18/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for
>>>>>>>>>>> a similar
>>>>>>>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *Parphrased as*
>>>>>>>>>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false
>>>>>>>>>>> proves that the
>>>>>>>>>>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true
>>>>>>>>>>> or false.
>>>>>>>>>>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot
>>>>>>>>>>> possibly be a
>>>>>>>>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just
>>>>>>>>>> LYING.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be
>>>>>>>>>> proven in F.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G
>>>>>>>>>> actually is, because all you look at are the "clift notes"
>>>>>>>>>> versions, and don't even understand that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number
>>>>>>>>>> that has a specific property. Until you understand that, your
>>>>>>>>>> continued talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET,
>>>>>>>>>> proving your absoulute STUPIDITY.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of
>>>>>>>>>>> language,
>>>>>>>>>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as
>>>>>>>>>>> the primary
>>>>>>>>>>> bearer of truth or falsity.
>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you
>>>>>>>>>> are arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I
>>>>>>>>> will stop
>>>>>>>>> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me
>>>>>>>>> names
>>>>>>>>> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without
>>>>>>>>> pointing
>>>>>>>>> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will
>>>>>>>>> hear nothing form me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I say you are WRONG, because you ARE.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable
>>>>>>>> because it is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that
>>>>>>>> satisfies a particular property, which will be a truth bearing
>>>>>>>> statement (The number must either exist or it doesn't)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but
>>>>>> incompletenwss, which is what the WORDS you used talked about.
>>>>>> (Read what you said above).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements
>>>>>> that are true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with
>>>>>> undecidability,
>>>>>
>>>>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
>>>>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
>>>>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
>>>>> *Mendelson (and everyone that knows these things) disagrees*
>>>>>
>>>>> https://sistemas.fciencias.unam.mx/~lokylog/images/Notas/la_aldea_de_la_logica/Libros_notas_varios/L_02_MENDELSON,%20E%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Mathematical%20Logic,%206th%20Ed%20-%20CRC%20Press%20(2015).pdf
>>>>
>>>> WHERE does he say that GODEL INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM directly says
>>>> anything about DECIDABILITY?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there is a link between completeness and decidability, as an
>>>> incomplete system has an undecidable problem, that of the proof
>>>
>>> *In other words you are totally retracting the line that I replied to*
>>>  >>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with
>>>  >>> undecidability,
>>>
>>> That is good because I totally agree with the preceding line that you
>>> said.
>>
>> No, because Godel was NOT talking about "undecidability" but
>> "Incompleteness".
>>
>> Even though there is a tie between the two topics, they are separate
>> topics.
>>
>
> Not according to this source
>
> Undecidability
> The non-existence of an algorithm or the impossibility of proving or
> disproving a statement within a formal system.
>
> https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Undecidability#:~:text=The%20non%2Dexistence%20of%20an,statement%20within%20a%20formal%20system.

On 4/19/24 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Parphrased as*
>>>>>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves
>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or
>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
>>>>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just LYING.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven in F.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually
>>>>>> is, because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and
>>>>>> don't even understand that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number
>>>>>> that has a specific property. Until you understand that, your
>>>>>> continued talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, proving
>>>>>> your absoulute STUPIDITY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
>>>>>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the
>>>>>>> primary
>>>>>>> bearer of truth or falsity.
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are
>>>>>> arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop
>>>>> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names
>>>>> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing
>>>>> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will
>>>>> hear nothing form me.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I say you are WRONG, because you ARE.
>>>>
>>>> You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable because
>>>> it is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't.
>>>>
>>>> It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that satisfies
>>>> a particular property, which will be a truth bearing statement (The
>>>> number must either exist or it doesn't)
>>>>
>>>> THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>
>> Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but incompletenwss,
>> which is what the WORDS you used talked about. (Read what you said
>> above).
>>
>> INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements that
>> are true.
>>
>
> I agree with this, and some other sources agree with this.

So, do you argree that Godel showed a proposition that must be true and
also unprovable?

Or do you think there can exist a statement that is false but probvable?

Remember, Godel's G was the statement that there does not exist a number
g that satisfies a specific primative recursive relationship.

And that relationship was derived such that any number g that satisifies
it, encodes a proof of the statement G, and any such proof could be
encoded into such a number.

>
>> Godel's proof you are quoting from had NOTHING to do with undecidability,
>
> *Other sources disagree*
>
> *These two sources define Undecidability as Incompleteness*
> Incomplete(F) ≡ ∃x ∈ L ((L ⊬  x) ∧ (L ⊬ ¬x))

Right

>
> Undecidable
> Not decidable as a result of being
> *neither formally provable nor unprovable*
> https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Undecidable.html
>
> Undecidability
> The non-existence of an algorithm or the
> *impossibility of proving or disproving a*
> *statement within a formal system*
> https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Undecidability#:~:text=The%20non%2Dexistence%20of%20an,statement%20within%20a%20formal%20system.

Which were NOT definition of "Undecidability" at the time of Godel, so
he could NOT have meant that,

That is just Eisegesis.

Note, other sources do NOT add that meaning, because it is new, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem
or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic)

>
>
>> in fact, the "computation" he described in the Primative Recursive
>> Relationship built is specifically one that is most assuredly
>> computable (for ANY number give to it, it WILL answer yes or no in
>> finite number of operations).
>>
>> So, who has been lying about what they are talkinga about? (or doesn't
>> know the difference in the topics).
>>
>> I answereed what you were talking about, even though it didn't match
>> your subject, because I understand your general confusion on the topics.
>>
>> So, you are just needing to yell at YOUSELF for using the wrong word,
>> which just shows your total ignorance about what you are talking about.
>>
>> Do you REALLY wonder why I point out your inability to put together a
>> coherent argument?
>>
>> You just showed yourself guilty of trying to use a Red Herring to
>> deflect the arguement about how you are totally ignorant about Godel's
>> argement, and that you LIE about what he said, because you have no
>> idea what he said, but try to put your own false words into his mouth,
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> That you repeat the error after being corrected, because apparently
>>>> you can't understand how you are wrong, makes you a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.
>>>>
>>>> You don't even understand what Godel's G even is, but try to refer
>>>> to it by the "Reader's Digest" version that talks about its
>>>> interpretation and what can be proved from it in the meta-logic
>>>> system derived from F.
>>>>
>>>> The details HAVE been explained to you, and you just IGNORE them, so
>>>> it seems worthless to repeat them every time.
>>>
>>
>

On 4/19/24 2:04 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Parphrased as*
>>>>>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves
>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or
>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly be a
>>>>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just LYING.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven in F.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually
>>>>>> is, because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and
>>>>>> don't even understand that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number
>>>>>> that has a specific property. Until you understand that, your
>>>>>> continued talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET, proving
>>>>>> your absoulute STUPIDITY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
>>>>>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the
>>>>>>> primary
>>>>>>> bearer of truth or falsity.
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are
>>>>>> arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop
>>>>> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names
>>>>> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing
>>>>> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will
>>>>> hear nothing form me.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I say you are WRONG, because you ARE.
>>>>
>>>> You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable because
>>>> it is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't.
>>>>
>>>> It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that satisfies
>>>> a particular property, which will be a truth bearing statement (The
>>>> number must either exist or it doesn't)
>>>>
>>>> THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>
>> Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but incompletenwss,
>> which is what the WORDS you used talked about. (Read what you said
>> above).
>>
>> INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements that
>> are true.
>
> *That is an excellent and correct foundation for what I am saying*
>
> When we create a three-valued logic system that has these
> three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic

IF you want to work with a Three Value logic system, then DO SO.

But, remember, once you make you system 3-values, you immediately loose
the ability to reference to anything proved in the classical two-value

>
> Then "This sentence is not true" has the semantic value of {Nonsense}
> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" has the semantic
> value of {True}.
>
> Although it may be difficult to understand that is exactly the
> difference between Tarski's "theory" and "metatheory" simplified
> as much as possible.

And, once you add that third value to logic, you can't USE Tarski, or
even talk about what he did, as it is OUTSIDE your frame of logic.

>
> This is Tarski's Liar Paradox basis
> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf
>
> That he refers to in this paragraph of his actual proof
>   "In accordance with the first part of Th. I we can obtain
>    the negation of one of the sentences in condition (α) of
>    convention T of § 3 as a consequence of the definition of
>    the symbol 'Pr' (provided we replace 'Tr' in this convention
>    by 'Pr')." https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>
> Allows his original formalized Liar Paradox:
>
> x ∉ True if and only if p
> where the symbol 'p' represents the whole sentence x

Right, He shows that this statement is EXPRESSABLE in the meta-theory
(something I don't think you understand)

>
> to be reverse-engineered from Line(1) of his actual proof:
> (I changed his abbreviations of "Pr" and "Tr" into words)

Note, "Th I" was established without reference to the meaning of the class.

>
> Here is the Tarski Undefinability Theorem proof
> (1) x ∉ Provable if and only if p    // assumption

NOT ASSUMPTION, he has shown that such an x must exist in the theory (if
it meets the requirements)

> (2) x ∈ True if and only if p        // assumption

NOT ASSUMPTION, but from the DEFINITION of what Truth is, the statement
x is true if and only if it is true (since p is the whole statement x)

> (3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True. // derived from (1) and (2)
> (4) either x ∉ True or x̄ ∉ True;     // axiom: True(x) ∨ ~True(~x)
> (5) if x ∈ Provable, then x ∈ True;  // axiom: Provable(x) → True(x)
> (6) if x̄ ∈ Provable, then x̄ ∈ True;  // axiom: Provable(~x) → True(~x)
> (7) x ∈ True
> (8) x ∉ Provable
> (9) x̄ ∉ Provable
>
>

Right.

Thus proving that there exists and x where x must be true, and x must be
unprovable.

You just don't understand what an "assumption" is and what is an
application of a proven statement.

On 4/19/2024 6:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/19/24 2:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/18/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 4/18/24 9:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/18/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 4/18/24 10:50 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/17/2024 10:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/17/24 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> ...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a
>>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>> undecidability proof...(Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Parphrased as*
>>>>>>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false proves
>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is true or
>>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just more of your LIES and STUPIDITY.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot possibly
>>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or false.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that ISN'T the definition of "Incomplete", so you are just
>>>>>>> LYING.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Godel showed that a statment, THAT WAS TRUE, couldn't be proven
>>>>>>> in F.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't even seem to understand what the statement G actually
>>>>>>> is, because all you look at are the "clift notes" versions, and
>>>>>>> don't even understand that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Remember, G is a statement about the non-existance of a number
>>>>>>> that has a specific property. Until you understand that, your
>>>>>>> continued talking about this is just more LIES and DECIET,
>>>>>>> proving your absoulute STUPIDITY.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language,
>>>>>>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the
>>>>>>>> primary
>>>>>>>> bearer of truth or falsity.
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right, and if you don't know what the proposition is that you are
>>>>>>> arguing about, you are just proven to be a stupid liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you are going to continue to be mean and call me names I will stop
>>>>>> talking to you. Even if you stop being mean and stop calling me names
>>>>>> if you continue to dogmatically say that I am wrong without pointing
>>>>>> out all of the details of my error, I will stop talking to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is either a civil debate and an honest dialogue or you will
>>>>>> hear nothing form me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I say you are WRONG, because you ARE.
>>>>>
>>>>> You say Godel's statement that is unprovable, is unprovable because
>>>>> it is an epistimalogical antinomy, when it isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a statement about the non-existance of a number that
>>>>> satisfies a particular property, which will be a truth bearing
>>>>> statement (The number must either exist or it doesn't)
>>>>>
>>>>> THAT MAKES YOU A LIAR.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>> *That is NOT how undecidability generically works and you know it*
>>>
>>> Well, Godel wasn't talking about "undecidability", but
>>> incompletenwss, which is what the WORDS you used talked about. (Read
>>> what you said above).
>>>
>>> INCOMPLETENESS is EXACTLY about the inability to prove statements
>>> that are true.
>>
>> *That is an excellent and correct foundation for what I am saying*
>>
>> When we create a three-valued logic system that has these
>> three values: {True, False, Nonsense}
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
>
> IF you want to work with a Three Value logic system, then DO SO.
>
> But, remember, once you make you system 3-values, you immediately loose
> the ability to reference to anything proved in the classical two-value
>
>>
>> Then "This sentence is not true" has the semantic value of {Nonsense}
>> This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" has the semantic
>> value of {True}.
>>
>> Although it may be difficult to understand that is exactly the
>> difference between Tarski's "theory" and "metatheory" simplified
>> as much as possible.
>
> And, once you add that third value to logic, you can't USE Tarski, or
> even talk about what he did, as it is OUTSIDE your frame of logic.
>

For teaching purposes it is easier to think of it as
a third semantic value. In actuality it would be
rejected as invalid input.

>>
>> This is Tarski's Liar Paradox basis
>> https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_247_248.pdf
>>
>> That he refers to in this paragraph of his actual proof
>>    "In accordance with the first part of Th. I we can obtain
>>     the negation of one of the sentences in condition (α) of
>>     convention T of § 3 as a consequence of the definition of
>>     the symbol 'Pr' (provided we replace 'Tr' in this convention
>>     by 'Pr')." https://liarparadox.org/Tarski_275_276.pdf
>>
>> Allows his original formalized Liar Paradox:
>>
>> x ∉ True if and only if p
>> where the symbol 'p' represents the whole sentence x
>
> Right, He shows that this statement is EXPRESSABLE in the meta-theory
> (something I don't think you understand)
>

I do. I understand it better than most.
This sentence is not true: "This sentence is not true" is true.

>>
>> to be reverse-engineered from Line(1) of his actual proof:
>> (I changed his abbreviations of "Pr" and "Tr" into words)
>
> Note, "Th I" was established without reference to the meaning of the class.
>
>>
>> Here is the Tarski Undefinability Theorem proof
>> (1) x ∉ Provable if and only if p    // assumption
>
> NOT ASSUMPTION, he has shown that such an x must exist in the theory (if
> it meets the requirements)
That is an adaptation of his Liar Paradox: x ∉ Tarski if and only if p

>
>> (2) x ∈ True if and only if p        // assumption
>
> NOT ASSUMPTION, but from the DEFINITION of what Truth is, the statement
> x is true if and only if it is true (since p is the whole statement x)

Convention T
>
>> (3) x ∉ Provable if and only if x ∈ True. // derived from (1) and (2)
>> (4) either x ∉ True or x̄ ∉ True;     // axiom: True(x) ∨ ~True(~x)
>> (5) if x ∈ Provable, then x ∈ True;  // axiom: Provable(x) → True(x)
>> (6) if x̄ ∈ Provable, then x̄ ∈ True;  // axiom: Provable(~x) → True(~x)
>> (7) x ∈ True
>> (8) x ∉ Provable
>> (9) x̄ ∉ Provable
>>
>>
>
> Right.
>
> Thus proving that there exists and x where x must be true, and x must be
> unprovable.
>
> You just don't understand what an "assumption" is and what is an
> application of a proven statement.